directory-dev mailing list archives

I second what Brett has said completely.
>
> From: Brett Porter <brett@apache.org>
> Date: 2005/01/04 Tue PM 05:38:56 EST
> To: Apache Directory Developers List <directory-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
>
> Quoting Phil Steitz <phil@steitz.com>:
>
> > As a point of clarification, the full javadoc is included in the binary
> > naming dist. It is, however, divided among the maven subprojects under the
> > /docs directory, which is a full image of the web site. I agree with Steve
> > that full javadoc should be provided as part of the release dist.
>
> I agree for the binary, not for the source. If you are getting the source dist
> and are using Maven/Ant to build it, you can do likewise for the javadoc (does
> the ant script contain a goal for that?)
>
> > To release naming, however, we need consensus on the issue raised in my
> > previous post to this thread: are we going to release "components" from the
> > Directory project at this time? If the answer is "no" we need to hold off
> > releasing naming from this project.
>
> At least from my POV in the last email, and what appears to be the general
> consensus is that it is a "no" to the new components, but "yes" to naming as it
> is different.
>
> reasons:
> - naming is mature
> - it has 3 people across it here and presumably the current Tomcat maintainers
> could be encouraged to join in here if we are getting this release put back into
> the latest Tomcat to replace their naming code from which it was derived
> - it is useful standalone, as well as inside Tomcat and TSFKAE
>
> > Assuming the answer is "yes" I would
> > also like to get review and support from the tomcat community (where almost
> > all of the code originated) before release. In any case, I want to settle
> > the question about components before we release one.
>
> I think it is time we started an individual vote on naming to see where everyone
> stands. The directory server can have its own after Alex's questions about how
> to bundle the release is addressed.
>
> Would you like to kick off the vote based on the previous one? All issues
> brought up since by myself and Steven seem to have been addressed (assuming we
> agree on the location of javadoc, and the license has indeed been fixed).
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
>